memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Enterprise (Kelvin timeline 2230s)
In service The U.S.S. Enterprise predecessor was likely in service 2235 - 2257. :How do you figure? --FaNbOy1988 (talk) 23:09, June 7, 2013 (UTC) ::Events take place after stardate 2233.04 (January 14, 2233 based on 0.04 of a year). Starfleet reacted to the size of the Nero's ship the Narada by shifting the focus of Starfleet to building ships faster and getting as much technology to defend themselves. Two years to build a starship seems reasonable. That's why 2235 for a launch date. Tedpronj (talk) 17:19, June 11, 2013 (UTC) :Sounds good enough to me! --FaNbOy1988 (talk) 17:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC) :::Speculation though. The start date shouldn't be listed -- sulfur (talk) 18:44, June 11, 2013 (UTC) :Oh, of course, nothing's concrete on the start date, I was just saying Tedpronj's theory was plausible. --FaNbOy1988 (talk) 19:18, June 11, 2013 (UTC) Registry I would speculate NCC-0701 to follow the U.S.S. Kelvin registry of NCC-0514. Tedpronj (talk) 05:12, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :The registry of the ship is NCC-1701, visible on the inside of a nacelle in the top picture of the article. –-- Markonian 09:57, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :OMG, Markonian is right, it is NCC-1701, man I'm blind. --FaNbOy1988 (talk) 10:33, June 7, 2013 (UTC) Ship Class Based on the picture from the comic, the Enterprise predecessor resembles a Constitution Class vessel. Possily the predecessor could be Constitution and the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 could be a Constitution II. Tedpronj (talk) 05:12, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :We don't know. But it looks like a Constitution-class vessel to me. –-- Markonian 09:57, June 7, 2013 (UTC) ::The comic may have shown the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 in orbit, still waiting while April and Kirk are talking, to show an Enterprise has returned. When Kirk thinks Enterprise, it's his ship. Tedpronj (talk) 17:06, June 11, 2013 (UTC) Is it possible that the Enterprise we've seen in the films is a refit of this one? - Nx1701g (talk) 12:59, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :Is there anywhere in the comic that directly says April commanded a predecessor starship? Or is that just supposition that assumes the Enterprise's launch in Star Trek was it's first launch and not a refit?--Long Live the United Earth (talk) 20:12, June 7, 2013 (UTC) He does say "I'm Robert April, former captain of a ship called Enterprise" in Countdown to Darkness, Number One. --FaNbOy1988 (talk) 23:12, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :So April could just be the former captain of the same Enterprise? and then the events of 2009's Star Trek are just a relaunch of the ship rather than its debut?--Long Live the United Earth (talk) 03:11, June 8, 2013 (UTC) ::In the comic Kirk says "April's ship was decommissioned two years ago. I got the new one." So there is no doubt it's a different ship. Podex (talk) 08:11, June 8, 2013 (UTC) ::Also the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was under construction in 2255 in the 2009 Star Trek. Tedpronj (talk) 17:06, June 11, 2013 (UTC) :So, is it a Constitution-class ship? We know that Starfleet in the Kelvin universe is not above changing the looks and proportions of the Connie, as evidenced by the changes seen on the 1701 (and -A redesign) over the three movies. Kind regards, -- Markonian 12:50, December 14, 2016 (UTC) ::It's certainly similar to the forms of Constitution class ships from both universes, but I'm not sure that gives us a right to speculate that is the class. We simply can't assign the name ourselves because of the uncertainty involved - - Captain MKB 14:01, December 14, 2016 (UTC) :::That makes sense. Case closed. -- Markonian 16:49, December 14, 2016 (UTC) Article title Based on the ship's registry, do we have ideas for a new article title?--Long Live the United Earth (talk) 20:12, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :I was thinking the same thing. How about these possibilities? :•USS Enterprise (alternate reality 2230s) :•USS Enterprise (alternate reality predecessor) :•USS Enterprise (NCC-1701 alternate reality 2230s) :•USS Enterprise (NCC-1701 2230s)--FaNbOy1988 (talk) 01:08, June 8, 2013 (UTC) I'd say either the third or fourth ones. In order to match our other articles it should have the registry number.--Long Live the United Earth (talk) 03:12, June 8, 2013 (UTC) THIS IS SO FRAKKING CONFUSING. Why not just say that this is the USS Enterprise (NCC-1008) a Bonaventure class Starship refitted in the mid 2230s. I say that the Koerner design is the perfect Candidate for this vessel. Theory I have a slightly wild theory about the connections between this ship and the prime enterprise , I think that these enterprises could be the same ship as they share a huge amount of structure and we have neither a 'concrete' commission/construction date of the first (prime) enterprise and this one Hutchy01 (talk) 10:14, August 25, 2014 (UTC) :The Enterprise was specifically referred to as a new ship on her maiden voyage in Star Trek 2009. any other theories, while fascinating and well reasoned, are not appropriate source material for this wiki -- Captain MKB 00:47, August 27, 2014 (UTC) Commissioning conjecture "Although the given timeframe of the ship's launch date is the "2230s", it is very unlikely that the Enterprise would have launched at any time before stardate 2233.04 (January 4th, 2233), the day the alternate reality was formed." This is pure conjecture and speculation. Whoever wrote this section fails to take into account time travel. As we know, there was a substantial amount of time travel to dates before 2233, several of which are known to have introduced different technology into the past. These time travel events could not have occurred the same way in this new timeline, because the future those time travellers originally came from no longer exists. Some time travel events didn't happen, some happened differently, and some happened that didn't happen in the prime universe. Changing the future in Star Trek also changes the past, which makes 2233 NOT the divergence point. The divergence point will be the earliest chronological visit by time travellers, at a point in the distant past. The sentence quoted above should be altered. BrentNewland (talk) 22:54, March 4, 2015 (UTC) :While the reasoning is logical, we cannot know for certain that other time travelling events have been affected. Everything before 2233.04 has been exactly the same. Your assumption would be that the entire timeline was duplicated. Instead, the timeline could've split like a two-headed cobra. -- Markonian 23:50, November 4, 2015 (UTC)